50 Or So Pages Of DG Are By Guru Gobind Singh

[Kully]

Harkiran Ji has stated that 50 or so pages are proved to be by Guru Sahib whereas the other 1100 pages have not.

What is the proof that these 50 or so pages were written by Guru Gobind Singh?

 

[swarn bains]

Akal ustat, sabad hazare, jaap sahib chaupai and zafarn nama,. They all praise God. so they are by guru Gobind singh. and the rest is all stories by ram ans sham and what proof you need and what is the reason

 

[Original]

Kully Ji

Can religious faith be said to be susceptible to rational deliberations ? Take for example, Jesus's resurrection n ascension to heaven. Millions of people consider it a special event and yet none of them were present when it allegedly happened 2000 years ago. How might you account for that ?

Many thanks -

 

[Kully]

They all praise God. so they are by guru Gobind singh.

Thanks for your thoughts Swaran Ji. Is the praising of God your criteria for these writings being of Guru Sahibs?

the rest is all stories by ram ans sham

Do you think the rest of the DG apart from those mentioned above are by Ram and Sham?

what proof you need

I'm not lookiing for proof Sir, what i'm looking for is the reasoning. The rationale behind why this is Guru Ji's and that isn't. What is your methodoogy is what I am interested in

what is the reason

Because I want to see if this methodology or ratiionale will differ when applied to other texts in the DG and also whether it will differ when we apply it to SGGS.

I'm not looking for right or wrong answers. I'm lookiing at the rationale behind the answers.

 

[Kully]

Can religious faith be said to be susceptible to rational deliberations ?

It's all about faith. Religious faith can absolutely be susceptible to rational deliberations, but only upto a point. I think.

 

[Original]

It's all about faith. Religious faith can absolutely be susceptible to rational deliberations, but only upto a point. I think.

Kully Ji, I love this bit when you try n justify with a "I think". Now explain Jesus' resurrection and ascent to heavens rationally.

Cheers

 

[Kully]

Now explain Jesus' resurrection and ascent to heavens rationally.

TBH I know little or nothing of Jesus, so would not be able to explain that, rationally or irrationally.

But make another topic for it, and let this one continue with the original heading please.

 

[swarn bains]

I do not know whether you want to learn or criticize. If you want to learn then put an effort on your own, dedicate yourself, be devotional. . Cannot learn anything by questioning or criticizing. if u put up an effort then if there is something you do not understand ask the scholars. if u just want to criticize then there is nothing worse than criticism in one's mind. So follow your mind what it wants. if you want to learn something Godly, here it is and let me know what your soul says
SGGS Page 839

ਜੋਦੇਖਿਦਿਖਾਵੈਤਿਸਕਉਬਲਿਜਾਈ॥

I admire those who see God and visualize God to me.

ਗੁਰਪਰਸਾਦਿਪਰਮਪਦੁਪਾਈ॥੧॥

By guru’s grace, I have obtained the supreme status. ||1||

ਕਿਆਜਪੁਜਾਪਉਬਿਨੁਜਗਦੀਸੈ॥

Who else can I worship but the Lord of the universe?

ਗੁਰਕੈਸਬਦਿਮਹਲੁਘਰੁਦੀਸੈ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ

One sees and reaches destiny through guru’s teaching


ਇਕਿਭ੍ਰਮਿਭੂਖੇਮੋਹਪਿਆਸੇ॥

Some are gripped by doubt, hunger, emotional attachment and desire.

ਇਕਿਰਸੁਚਾਖਿਸਬਦਿਤ੍ਰਿਪਤਾਸੇ॥

Some taste the sublime essence of guru’s teachings and are satisfied.

ਇਕਿਰੰਗਿਰਾਤੇਇਕਿਮਰਿਧੂਰਿ॥

Some are imbued with Lord’s love, while some die and reduced to dust.

ਇਕਿਦਰਿਘਰਿਸਾਚੈਦੇਖਿਹਦੂਰਿ॥੬॥

Some attain the destiny and visualize God. ||6||

ਝੂਠੇਕਉਨਾਹੀਪਤਿਨਾਉ॥

The false has no honor, fame or name;

ਕਬਹੁਨਸੂਚਾਕਾਲਾਕਾਉ॥

Like the black crow, he never becomes pure.

ਪਿੰਜਰਿਪੰਖੀਬੰਧਿਆਕੋਇ॥

He is like the bird, kept in a cage;

ਛੇਰੀਂਭਰਮੈਮੁਕਤਿਨਹੋਇ॥

Walking back and forth in the cage does not attain liberation.

ਤਉਛੂਟੈਜਾਖਸਮੁਛਡਾਏ॥

He is liberated when the master liberates him.

ਗੁਰਮਤਿਮੇਲੇਭਗਤਿਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਏ॥੭॥

He attains liberation through guru’s teachings by worshipping God. ||7||

 

[Kully]

I do not know whether you want to learn or criticize.

I want to learn.

if there is something you do not understand ask the scholars

I don't know any scholars, but the reason I joined this forum was to ask forum members.

Some members have claimed that only a certain portion of DG is written by Guru Gobind Singh. I am asking how they arrived at this conclusion. What is their methodology to arriving at this conclusion?

 

[Harry Haller]

Some members have claimed that only a certain portion of DG is written by Guru Gobind Singh. I am asking how they arrived at this conclusion. What is their methodology to arriving at this conclusion?

I think its probably called the litmus test, it allows to accept or reject certain facets of Sikhism based on the fact that it is fundamentally in opposition to the teachings of the Gurus. Your argument does lack a certain maturity, for instance, can you prove that I am not the author Clive Cussler, and that I wrote all the books by Clive Cussler, no, of course you cannot, so how can we prove beyond all doubt the works and alleged works of the tenth Master? We could be here some time, let us save some time and go with what Sikh Philosophy states, this begs a question, and then we can move forward

do you believe that Guru Gobind Singhji wrote DG in its entirety?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I think its probably called the litmus test, it allows to accept or reject certain facets of Sikhism based on the fact that it is fundamentally in opposition to the teachings of the Gurus. Your argument does lack a certain maturity, for instance, can you prove that I am not the author Clive Cussler, and that I wrote all the books by Clive Cussler, no, of course you cannot, so how can we prove beyond all doubt the works and alleged works of the tenth Master? We could be here some time, let us save some time and go with what Sikh Philosophy states, this begs a question, and then we can move forward

do you believe that Guru Gobind Singhji wrote DG in its entirety?

You mean certain facets ATTRIBUTED to Sikhism, because if they don't pass the litmus test, that being in consonance with Gurmat Principles as laid out in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our ONLY Guru, then those facets can't conceivably be from one of our Gurus. For example, seeing women as 'deceitful' and telling men to distrust women goes against this litmus test because SGGSJ says as Gurmukh to see ALL with a single eye of equality - now the "saying single eye of equality" refers to justice. When applying justice to anyone you have to be fair and equal to everyone, so for a Guru to then lay blame for deceit and immorality on one gender (even if it was just for allegorical purposes) goes against Gurmat. Women are no more prone to deception and immorality than are men. Similarly to say that wives must never do anything without the husband's permission, not even urinate, goes against the Gurmat principle of freedom of every soul - there is no hierarchy of humans . This was a message from Laws of Manu, but not Sikhi - the very message Guru Gobind Singh Ji instilled in initiates when taking amrit is that everyone, regardless of caste, colour, GENDER< rich/poor etc are treated as equals - drinking from the same bata sitting on equal level. There is no longer any hierarchy, and every difference used to delineate and put some above others, were removed. So.... how can that be?? He only meant everyone is equal if they have a p***s?? Doesn't pass the litmus test. Kully suggested earlier that (in his opinion, after having only read a few charitars and that too only for the last 2 months) was that the charitars do not degrade women because Guru Ji only used women as a 'character' to get the deeper message across. However, since Guru Gobind Singh Ji emphasized equality so VERY strongly, it makes no sense that he would then degrade an entire gender just to illustrate a point. In other words, even if you try to say he didn't mean the outward meanings (which are very difficult to ignore), he still would have openly degraded the entire gender just to get his point across. I don't think our Guru was the type to degrade anyone, just to make an unrelated point - nor would he have ever needed to resort to such low behaviour - if he did he certainly did not think much of his Kaurs anyway to throw them under the bus - but I can picture him saying now "oh but I didn't mean it that way"!!! Again, does not pass litmus test.
Also the fact that these supposed deep hidden meanings in Charitropakhyan (and other parts of DG) are the very same messages contained in SGGSJ. So why the need to write the same things again? And that too in a way that creates distrust and contempt towards women in the minds of men... even their own wives? When Guru Ji himself said to see only SGGSJ as our Guru, and ALL the knowledge we would need is contained in SGGSJ? Again, doesn't seem right. All this without even pointing towards sources!

 

[Harry Haller]

You mean certain facets ATTRIBUTED to Sikhism

no, for that would mean I have a monopoly on the truth, the Nirankaris, Namdharis, Nihangs, 3HO would all say they are part of SIkhism, the only way we are all going to understand each other is by debating calmly and politely, it is not about what we believe in being imposed on others, but using this litmus test to guide us to the truth. We do not know the truth, all we know is how we feel, sometimes this runs with the truth, but we will never truly know beyond all doubt.All we can is take our best shot at understanding and run with it, then refine it, go backwards, go sideways, go round in circles, and hopefully move forward. It is important to focus on the key arguments, and as the question has been asked, it is only fair to enquire as to how the OP feels about the topic and go from there.

 

[Kully]

I think its probably called the litmus test, it allows to accept or reject certain facets of Sikhism based on the fact that it is fundamentally in opposition to the teachings of the Gurus.

Yes, that is exactly what I had in mind when I asked the question. The litmus test. Thanks for your input. You see Harry Ji, some will accept it entirely, and some reject it entirely. What was puzzling me was those in between. What made them accept one part and reject another of DG.

I do apologise profusely for lack of maturity in discussion. Hopefully I will get better.

Some Sikhs will say that certain things are against Sikhi but can't say why apart from it being a personal belief. I wanted to know more about why they feel this, esp with DG.

There are some people, who feel that Raagmala should not be part of SGGS but can't really explain why. They just follow whatever they have heard without really making any effort to see what the reality is.

do you believe that Guru Gobind Singhji wrote DG in its entirety?

In one word. Yes.

Not because I'm being pig-headed or obstinate about it. I feel there is simply too much evidence to show that DG was written by Guru Sahib, and that the Guru Khalsa had no qualms about authorship of this granth, to the extent that they gave it a place in the hazuri of SGGS.

 

[Kully]

Kully suggested earlier that (in his opinion, after having only read a few charitars and that too only for the last 2 months) was that the charitars do not degrade women because Guru Ji only used women as a 'character' to get the deeper message across.

Harkiran Ji, I have clearly stated that the main characters in the text represent something greater than genders. They represent life, with all it's ups and downs. Not only female but males as well.

Similarly to say that wives must never do anything without the husband's permission, not even urinate, goes against the Gurmat principle of freedom of every soul - there is no hierarchy of humans .

I have asked you before, please start a topic on the charitar, and when you do quote from a charitar, if you can share the number that will make it easier to look into. Throwing random quotes from the texts doesn't do anything to help the discussion.

 

[Harry Haller]

Yes, that is exactly what I had in mind when I asked the question. The litmus test. Thanks for your input. You see Harry Ji, some will accept it entirely, and some reject it entirely. What was puzzling me was those in between. What made them accept one part and reject another of DG.

I guess that is a persons own litmus test, and a persons own right.

There are some people, who feel that Raagmala should not be part of SGGS but can't really explain why. They just follow whatever they have heard without really making any effort to see what the reality is.

I concede your point, there is a lot of Sikhism that is made up of such.

In one word. Yes.

Not because I'm being pig-headed or obstinate about it. I feel there is simply too much evidence to show that DG was written by Guru Sahib, and that the Guru Khalsa had no qualms about authorship of this granth, to the extent that they gave it a place in the hazuri of SGGS.

good, then let us continue, but I assume you feel it is written in metaphors, yes?

 

[Kully]

good, then let us continue, but I assume you feel it is written in metaphors, yes?

Not all of it.

I concede your point, there is a lot of Sikhism that is made up of such.

Please don't use the word concede. It feels out of place in a mature friendly discussion. I am not here to score points over anyone or anything.

There is a lot of things that we do in Sikhi that we cannot find in Sikh texts/granths. This is exactly what I was trying to get across in the other topics.

 

[Harry Haller]

Please don't use the word concede. It feels out of place in a mature friendly discussion. I am not here to score points over anyone or anything.

I am not here to have a mature friendly discussion, more is the shame, no I am here to shine a light on good debate and interaction.Feel free to score points, its how you win.

Could you outline your exact point that is the root of all these posts so that we can move ahead in one direction, rather than a tangent?

 

[Kully]

Could you outline your exact point that is the root of all these posts so that we can move ahead in one direction, rather than a tangent?

I have already done that. I put a question to the forum, for those who beleive that 50 or so pages of DG are Guru Sahib's writing , on what basis do they believe them to be, and on what basis do they reject the others.

 

[swarn bains]

you seem to be an intelligent man but doubtful of what you see. Doubt and slander are the two biggest obstructions which stop the one to follow godly path. The doubt can be cleared by studying, reading and following someone's instructions honestly. Till you are honest on your endevour and dedicated, you cannot learn anything. If you want to learn something be dedicated, stop asking impossible questions. Put your soul to learning.
dedication. when SGGS was written Guru Arjun dev advertised in India . to bring your writings. Shah hussain, peelu who wrote Mirza sahibaan and Chhaju brought their writings and were rejected and many more were rejected.
On the other hand Sur das a blind saint walked from Mthura for a month and read his writing and it was accepted and included in SGGS
SGGs has its yard stick which is based on love, humility, dedication guru's teaching, spiritual teaching and spiritual learning, code of conduct , musical sounds and to sing the balancing of the stanzas. ( SGGS is an ocean of learning of spiritual knowledge) Anyone who's writing does not meet that yard stick is not included in it.
I wrote above because dasam granth and guru Gobind singh's writing does not meet the requirements of that yard stick although some do and he included it in SGGS. His writing which is in SGGs is not in dasam granth. Guru Gobind singh's writing is fabulous but not for learning.. So there is not much to learn spirituality out of guru Gobind singh's writing or dasam granth. Then why are you so bent upon questioning the validity of dasam granth. You have to change your course if you really want to learn something. Your way of questioning is illogical. so change it read understand and follow it and themn ask me the question i will answer your questions of dasam granth also because i read dg. by the way it is written brig bhasha. one has to know that to understand it. So long friend

 

[Original]

Kully Ji

It wasn't immediately apprehensible to the senses to connect a falling apple and the rising sun in one wakeful moment. It took over a millennia to fine tune the brain and a genius to work out these two effects are the product of a single hidden cause, gravity.

On the balance of probabilities, the two arguments [you n Harkiran] are pretty much inconclusive [on my part], albeit, one heavier than the other. For me, soaking wisdom means doing what Newton did with gravity: asking the right questions, teasing out causes and effects, and so building an intellectual framework to rationally deliberate whether Guru Gobind Singh wrote any of the disputed texts.

Knowing what you know and believing what you believe, kindly demystify for me whether it was Gobind the Guru who wrote the SDGSJ or Gobind the man ? Feel free to interrogate !

Much obliged

PS - ever since learning from your good self and Harkiran Kaur of the controversy surrounding SDGSJ, I've made several visits to the Sikh Missionary Society UK to learn more. I'm pleased to say I've managed to commission a body of scholars to undertake this here an expedition for conclusive determination